I want you to look in the newspaper editorials over the next couple of days (I don't care which one so long as it is a regular news source - online works).
Pick out, quote, and label the semantic issues in the editorial (ie: loaded words, semantic range of words, context, etc).
I want you to make a simple "should" argument. I want it to pertain to something relevant, but it doesn't have to be terribly in depth.
However, I want you to show all three parts of the should argument and number them. Here's an example:
Argument: "The USA should have mandatory gun safety and use training for anyone who wants to own a firearm in our nation because if we're going to allow private citizens to own firearms we would rather have them be proficient and safe for everyone's benefit."
(By the way - NEVER skip the BECAUSE part. You need to establish the goal of why we "should" do something).
1. Will the suggested action achieve the goal?
Yes, gun safety classes have shown a decrease in firearm accidents and let's face it - if someone deploys a firearm it's both safer and assists the safety of innocent bystandards if they can deploy their weapon with a little bit of skill.
2. Is it the best way to achieve the goal?
I believe so. It's certainly safer than having no mandatory training, and although eliminating guns altogether would achieve more safety, it violates an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that I believe has become legally and socially intractable (even if it's questionable by the original intent).
Also, I believe that it's beneficial for responsible citizens to use lethal force in defense of their person and property.
3. Is the goal valuable enough to justify the action required to attain it?
Yes, there are enough gun accidents and crossfire kills each year to justify increased safety measures (even a 1% decrease would be a positive). Additionally, I believe it is a greater crime deterrent if criminals realize...